Long-term Impact of Androgen-deprivation Therapy on Cardiovascular Morbidity After Radiotherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

Appropriateness and complications of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: Can we do better? A retrospective observational analysis from a referral center

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the key of medical treatment for advanced prostate cancer (PCa), especially in elderly patients. However, the adherence of ADT prescription to current guidelines is not optimal and must be balanced against possible side effects. Aim of this study was to evaluate the prescriptive appropriateness of ADT and ADT-related adverse events in a referral center for PCa.

METHODS

Five hundred fifty six patients who received an outpatient prescription for ADT from 2014 to 2018 were retrospectively identified from an administrative database. Only standard ADT was considered, including GnRH agonists, GnRH antagonists, and antiandrogens. Prescriptive appropriateness was defined according to the last European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. Our cohort was stratified according to age categories and patient follow-up was updated.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty five patients were available for analysis. Mean age was 80 years; 96.3% of our patients fell in the "elderly" category. There was a predominance of GnRH agonists over the antagonists (84.9% vs 13%). 15.5% of ADTs did not have an appropriate indication according to guidelines. Patient compliance to ADT was evaluated as good in 372 (87.5%) cases. ADT-related complications were detected in 166 (39%) patients: bone, cardiovascular, and other complications were reported in 7.3%, 8.9%, and 19% of patients. Progression of disease was noted in 165 (38.8%) cases during ADT. At last follow-up, 124 (30.1%) patients were deceased.

CONCLUSIONS

In a referral center, most ADT prescriptions followed EAU guidelines, but a non-negligible proportion still did not fall within these indications, exposing patients to unnecessary side effects. Compliance to ADT was generally good with a predominant use of GnRH agonists. Tolerance to ADT was fair, even if standardized reports were lacking.

No increased risk of dementia in patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a 5-year follow-up study

Prior studies suggested that the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer (PC) might cause the impairment of cognitive function which is one of the common symptoms of dementia; however, the association between ADT and cognitive impairment still remains controversial. This retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the relationship between ADT and subsequent risk of dementia using a population-based dataset. Data for this study were taken from the Taiwan (China)Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2005. We included 755 PC patients who received ADT in the study cohort and 559 PC patients who did not receive ADT in the comparison cohort. Each patient was individually tracked for a 5-year period to define those who subsequently received a diagnosis of dementia. Results show that the incidence rates of dementia per 100 person-years were 2.35 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.82–2.98) and 1.85 (95% CI: 1.35–2.48) for PC patients who received ADT and those who did not receive ADT, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for dementia for PC patients who received ADT was 1.21 (95% CI: 0.82–1.78, P = 0.333) compared to those who did not receive ADT. In addition, the adjusted HRs for dementia for PC patients receiving ADT with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and without GnRH agonists were 1.39 (95% CI: 0.80–2.40, P = 0.240) and 1.13 (95% CI: 0.75–1.71, P = 0.564), respectively, compared to PC patients not receiving ADT. We concluded that there was no difference in the risk of subsequent dementia between PC patients who did and those who did not receive ADT.

A Bioluminescent and Fluorescent Orthotopic Syngeneic Murine Model of Androgen-dependent and Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer

Orthotopic tumor modeling is a valuable tool for pre-clinical prostate cancer research, as it has multiple advantages over both subcutaneous and transgenic genetically engineered mouse models. Unlike subcutaneous tumors, orthotopic tumors contain more clinically accurate vasculature, tumor microenvironment, and responses to multiple therapies. In contrast to genetically engineered mouse models, orthotopic models can be performed with lower cost and in less time, involve the use of highly complex and heterogeneous mouse or human cancer cell lines, rather that single genetic alterations, and these cell lines can be genetically modified, such as to express imaging agents. Here, we present a protocol to surgically injecting a luciferase- and mCherry-expressing murine prostate cancer cell line into the anterior prostate lobe of mice. These mice developed orthotopic tumors that were non-invasively monitored in vivo and further analyzed for tumor volume, weight, mouse survival, and immune infiltration. Further, orthotopic tumor-bearing mice were surgically castrated, leading to immediate tumor regression and subsequent recurrence, representing castration-resistant prostate cancer. Although technical skill is required to carry out this procedure, this syngeneic orthotopic model of both androgen-dependent and castration-resistant prostate cancer is of great use to all investigators in the field.

Radiotherapy and Hormone Treatment in Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer has the highest incidence of any type of cancer in Germany; an estimated 67 000 new diagnoses of prostate cancer will be made in 2016. In the current German S3 guideline for the treatment of prostate cancer, radiotherapy-sometimes in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-is one of the two recommended options for treatment with curative intent (the other is radical prostatectomy). There have been many publications on this subject, yet it is still often unclear in routine practice how ADT should be administered, and for how long.

METHODS

This review is based on publications retrieved by a selective literature search, with special attention to controlled trials.

RESULTS

For low risk patients, radiotherapy without ADT is indicated (evidence level 1). Patients with localized prostate cancer and an intermediate risk benefit from radiotherapy combined with a four-to-six-month course of ADT. In this situation, a higher radiation dose might be an effective substitute for ADT (evidence level 1-2). For patients at high risk, radiotherapy combined with long-term hormonal treatment is the standard therapy, as it significantly improves all oncological end points (evidence level 1). For example, in the largest randomized and controlled trial, this form of treatment reduced cancer-specific mortality from 19% to 9% . Higher radiation doses of 66-74 Gy and longer ADT can improve local control at the cost of increased urethral toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Androgen deprivation combined with external beam radiotherapy is a curative standard option for patients with prostate cancer who are at high risk of recurrence. The modern radiotherapeutic techniques that are now available, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, enable a further improvement of the risk/benefit ratio.

Prostate-selective α antagonists increase fracture risk in prostate cancer patients with and without a history of androgen deprivation therapy: a nationwide population-based study

Introductions

Prostate-selective α antagonists are recommended for relief of lower urinary tract symptoms in prostate cancer patients despite uncertainty of fracture risk as an addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The purpose of this study is to estimate fracture risk associated with these medications in prostate cancer patients who did and did not receive ADT.

Methods

The Taiwan National Health Insurance database was used to identify prostate cancer patients. We identified all 90-day person-quarters exposed to and not exposed to prostate-selective α antagonists. A generalized estimating equation model was used to estimated adjusted odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for fracture associated with prostate-selective α antagonists with consideration for confounding by indication bias using propensity score.

Results

During 1997–2008, 16,601 persons received a diagnosis of prostate cancer, among whom 13,694 received ADT. Among prostate cancer patients receiving ADT, fracture was significantly more common in person-quarters with prostate-selective α antagonist use than in quarters without such treatment (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00–1.18). Prostate-selective α antagonist use was most strongly associated with femur fracture (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09–1.38), followed by skull fracture (OR, 1.29; 95% CIs: 0.93–1.80). Among patients who did not receive ADT, fracture was more common in person-quarters with prostate-selective α antagonist use than in those without medication use (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.91–1.55).

Conclusions

Prostate-selective α antagonist is associated with an increased fracture risk, particular for fractures in skull and femur. Patients should be well-informed on this potential risk before taking prostate-selective α antagonists.

Cardiovascular Complications of Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Prostate cancer is a common hormone-sensitive malignancy, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a cornerstone of therapy in advanced disease. The most important and controversial of ADT side effects is cardiovascular (CV) toxicity. Prospective trials have demonstrated that ADT increases CV risk by lowering insulin sensitivity, causing dyslipidemia, and causing weight gain thus mimicking metabolic syndrome. Retrospective data suggests that ADT increases CV risk; however, data on cardiovascular mortality is equivocal. This discrepancy can be explained by study design limitations and selection bias inherent to post hoc analysis of trials not designed to study CV outcomes. Despite the adverse CV and metabolic sequelae of ADT, little data is available for optimal cardiac screening or management in these patients. The short-term CV risk is higher in patients who have had CV events in the year prior to starting ADT. A careful discussion of risk and benefit of ADT must take place with patients with pre-existing CV disease prior to initiating hormonal therapy. The duration of ADT must be considered. We recommend diligent pretherapy screening and optimization of cardiac risk factors and close surveillance especially within the first year of ADT.

Adverse Health Outcomes Associated with Postdiagnosis Smoking in Prostate Cancer Patients: A Literature Review

This literature review presents what is currently known about the association between postdiagnosis smoking and adverse health outcomes in prostate cancer. A literature search was conducted using Ovid Embase and Ovid MEDLINE. Information from 36 studies was summarized. There is strong evidence across the included studies of higher overall mortality and biochemical recurrence in current smokers diagnosed with prostate cancer. In addition, enhanced adverse effects following surgery, radiation, and hormone therapy have also been identified in current smokers of this population.

Safety and Antitumour Activity of ODM-201 (BAY-1841788) in Castration-resistant, CYP17 Inhibitor-naïve Prostate Cancer: Results from Extended Follow-up of the ARADES Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) had extended responses to the androgen receptor antagonist ODM-201, in phase 1/2 studies.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and antitumour activity of prolonged ODM-201 treatment in patients with CRPC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The ARADES trial was a multicentre phase 1 (dose escalation) and phase 2 (dose expansion) trial; 134 patients with CRPC were stratified by previous chemotherapy to receive ODM-201. This paper reports extended follow-up in CYP17 inhibitor (CYP17i)-naïve patients.

INTERVENTION

Patients (n=77) received oral ODM-201 twice daily at daily doses of 200-1800mg.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Safety, measured as the occurrence of adverse events (AEs), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and radiographic progression.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The safety profile of extended ODM-201 treatment (median treatment duration 8.2 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.6-11.0) was consistent with that reported at the time of the original data cutoff in the main ARADES trial, with no unexpected safety concerns over time. The majority of AEs (61.1%) were mild (grade 1); the most common AE was fatigue/asthenia (35.1% of patients), with no clear relationship to ODM-201. Median time to PSA progression was 25.2 mo (95% CI 11.3-25.2) for chemotherapy-naïve men and not reached (NR; 95% CI 5.5-NR) for chemotherapy-pretreated patients; a trend for improved antitumour response was observed for chemotherapy-naïve patients. The median time to radiographic progression was longer for chemotherapy-naïve (14.0 mo, 95% CI 8.1-33.3) than for chemotherapy-pretreated (7.2 mo, 95% CI 2.7-11.0) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged exposure to ODM-201 was well tolerated, with no additional safety concerns; disease suppression was sustained, especially in chemotherapy-naïve patients. These data support further development of ODM-201 in men with CYP17i-naïve CRPC.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Extended ODM-201 therapy was well tolerated, with beneficial antitumour activity in men with advanced prostate cancer, indicating that ODM-201 may represent a new active treatment for men with CRPC. This extension trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) under identification number NCT01429064.

American Brachytherapy Society Task Group Report: Use of androgen deprivation therapy with prostate brachytherapy-A systematic literature review

PURPOSE

Prostate brachytherapy (PB) has well-documented excellent long-term outcomes in all risk groups. There are significant uncertainties regarding the role of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with brachytherapy. The purpose of this report was to review systemically the published literature and summarize present knowledge regarding the impact of ADT on biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase covering the years 1996-2016. Selected were articles with >100 patients, minimum followup 3 years, defined risk stratification, and directly examining the role and impact of ADT on bPFS, CSS, and OS. The studies were grouped to reflect disease risk stratification. We also reviewed the impact of ADT on OS, cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, and on-going brachytherapy randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

Fifty-two selected studies (43,303 patients) were included in this review; 7 high-dose rate and 45 low-dose rate; 25 studies were multi-institutional and 27 single institution (retrospective review or prospective data collection) and 2 were RCTs. The studies were heterogeneous in patient population, risk categories, risk factors, followup time, and treatment administered, including ADT administration and duration (median, 3-12 months);71% of the studies reported a lack of benefit, whereas 28% showed improvement in bPFS with addition of ADT to PB. The lack of benefit was seen in low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk (IR) disease and most high-dose rate studies. A bPFS benefit of up to 15% was seen with ADT use in patients with suboptimal dosimetry, those with multiple adverse risk factors (unfavorable IR [uIR]), and most high-risk (HR) studies. Four studies reported very small benefit to CSS (2%). None of the studies showed OS advantage; however, three studies reported an absolute 5-20% OS detriment with ADT. Literature suggests that OS detriment is more likely in older patients or those with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Four RCTs with an adequate number of patients and well-defined risk stratification are in progress. One RCT will answer the question regarding the role of ADT with PB in favorable IR patients and the other three RCTs will focus on optimal duration of ADT in the uIR and favorable HR population.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with brachytherapy have excellent long-term disease outcomes. Existing evidence shows no benefit of adding ADT to PB in low-risk and favorable IR patients. UIR and HR patients and those with suboptimal dosimetry may have up to 15% improvement in bPFS with addition of 3-12 months of ADT, with uncertain impact on CSS and a potential detriment on OS. To minimize morbidity, one should exercise caution in prescribing ADT together with PB, in particular to older men and those with existing cardiovascular disease. Due to the retrospective nature of this evidence, significant selection, and treatment bias, no definitive conclusions are possible. RCT is urgently needed to define the potential role and optimal duration of ADT in uIR and favorable HR disease.

Impact of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Overall Mortality in Prostate Brachytherapy Patients With Low Pretreatment Testosterone Levels

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate brachytherapy patients impacts overall mortality (OM) in patients with lower pretreatment serum testosterone levels compared with those with normal or high baseline serum testosterone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From October 2001 to May 2014, 1916 patients underwent brachytherapy and had a pretreatment serum testosterone. Baseline serum testosterone values were collected prospectively before initiation of therapy. Median follow-up was 7.2 years. In total, 26% of the patients received ADT, primarily men with higher risk disease. OM and prostate cancer-specific mortality were examined to determine whether men with lower baseline serum testosterone were at increased risk of mortality when ADT was used, compared with men with baseline normal or higher testosterone.

RESULTS

Prostate cancer-specific mortality and OM at 10 years was 0.8% and 22.0%. Age, tobacco use, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and percent positive biopsies were the strongest predictors of OM. ADT use by itself was not associated with an increased risk of OM on multivariate analysis (P=0.695). However, ADT use in men with lower baseline testosterone was associated with a significantly higher risk of OM (P<0.01). ADT use in men with normal or higher baseline testosterone was not associated with an increased OM risk (P=0.924).

CONCLUSIONS

Men with lower baseline testosterone may be at increased risk of premature death when ADT is utilized compared with men with baseline normal or higher testosterone. Further analysis of this potential risk factor is warranted to further identify subsets of men who may be at higher risk of long-term adverse sequelae from ADT.

Cardiovascular and Skeletal-related Events Following Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment: Role of Surgery, Radiotherapy, and Androgen Deprivation

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and primary treatment modality on cardiovascular and skeletal-related events and to investigate potential effect modification in a contemporary cohort of patients treated for clinically localized prostate cancer.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked databases for men aged 65-79 years who underwent radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for cT1 or cT2 prostate cancer from 2000 to 2008. We categorized treatment according to primary therapy and receipt of ADT. We described the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular and skeletal-related events.

RESULTS

Among 60,156 men, 14,403 underwent surgery and 45,753 underwent radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 6.0 years. After adjusting for baseline differences, treatments with radiotherapy (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] 1.16-1.28, P <.0001-.04) and ADT (aHR 1.18-1.32, P <.0001-.008) were each independently associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease, sudden cardiac death, fracture, and fracture requiring hospitalization. Radiotherapy was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction (aHR 1.20, P = .02), whereas ADT was not (P = .5). We did not identify a significant statistical interaction between primary and hormonal treatment.

CONCLUSION

Care for cardiovascular and skeletal-related events is an important part of the survivorship phase for a significant proportion of patients with localized prostate cancer. Increasing use of ADT for patients with localized disease undergoing radiotherapy and the observed higher prevalence of these events in these patients should be considered when discussing the risks and benefits of treatment for localized prostate cancer and when formulating a survivorship plan.

Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease and Osteoporosis During Androgen Deprivation Therapy Prescription Discordant to EAU Guidelines: Results From a Multicenter, Cross-sectional Analysis From the CHOsIng Treatment for Prostate canCEr (CHOICE) Study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and osteoporosis in patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) but not adherent to European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CHOosIng Treatment for Prostate CanCEr (CHOICE) study was an Italian multicenter, cross-sectional study conducted from December 2010 to January 2012. A total of 1386 patients treated with ADT for PCa (first prescription or renewal of ADT) were selected. According to EAU guidelines, the cohort was categorized in discordant ADT (Group A) and concordant ADT (Group B). The prevalence of CVD and osteoporosis after ADT was recorded.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 1075 patients. According to EAU guidelines adherence, 285 (26.51%) and 790 (73.49%) were considered discordant and concordant, respectively. The proportion of men with Charlson Comorbidity Index  > 2 at baseline was statistically similar in Group A (81.8%) compared to Group B (80.8%) (P = .96). The number of complications reported at enrollment was as follows: cardiovascular in 351 (32.7%), endocrine in 166 (15.4%), sexual in 498 (46.3%), osteoporosis in 181 (16.8%), and gynecomastia in 274 (25.5%) subjects. At the multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for confounding factors, discordant ADT was associated with greater risk of cardiovascular complications (odds ratio: 2.07; P < .01) and osteoporosis (odds ratio: 1.75; P = .04).

CONCLUSION

About one-third of patients with PCa received inappropriate ADT and showed a greater risk of CVD and osteoporosis. These results could be useful for setting better policy strategies to limit the inappropriateness of ADT prescription.